James White,
the
Reformed Baptist apologist and anti-Catholic critic, wrote an
article for his web site (apparently in response at least partly
to this one) attacking the credibility of Catholic apologists
such as Karl Keating and Steve Ray for their use of the common
saying from St. Augustine: "Rome has spoken;
the case is closed." While no
one needs my defense (their books, research, scholarship, and
integrity speak for themselves), I thought I would make some
comment on White's article. First, that this is an accurate
summary (though not a direct quotation) of St. Augustine's words
is admitted in the notes of the Protestant edition
of the Church Fathers (edited by Philip Schaff, among others):

"Hence the famous word: 'Roma locuta est, causa finita
est,' which is often
quoted as an argument for the modern Vatican dogma of papal
infallibility. But it is not found in this form, though
we may admit that it is an epigrammatic condensation of sentences
of Augustin. The nearest approach to it is in
his Sermon CXXXI [131]...." (NPNF
Series 1, Volume 1, page 21, footnote 64)

"We have often
seen amateur Catholic apologists confidently asserting that
Cyprian believed in the infallibility of the bishop of Rome,
or that Augustine took the word of Rome as the final
authority. Surely that is Keating's intention, given the
context, in citing both patristic sources. But, as all
students of church history know (and as Roman Catholic
historians have admitted for a very long time), neither early
father would have agreed with the use of their words by
Keating. In fact, Keating could never defend the veracity of
his research against a meaningful criticism. Let's look
briefly at Cyprian and Augustine and see how this Catholic
legend is just that: legendary."

White then quotes a couple
Protestant historians/scholars (such as Schaff) and modern
Catholic scholars (such as Robert Eno or Quasten) in support of his thesis
that St. Cyprian and St. Augustine had no concept of a
Papacy in the early Church. I believe Dom John Chapman destroys
White's thesis which is perhaps why there is no link to this
article from his site. I would challenge White to link to this
article if he really desires his interested readers to hear the
full story.

Dave Hunt,
the anti-Catholic Fundamentalist Dispensationalist
who no one would mistake for a Church historian, in his usual acerbic tone, makes
a bold claim in A Woman Rides the Beast (Harvest
House, 1994) concerning St. Augustine and the Papacy:

"In order to promote the
necessary blind faith in the pope's infallibility and in the
dogma that salvation is obtainable only in the Roman Catholic
Church, its hierarchy has hidden the facts and
rewritten history. One example is the quote by
Augustine on the facing page ["Rome has spoken; the
dispute is at an end" -- summary of Sermon 131:10]. If,
as the argument goes, Augustine, the greatest theologian of
the Church, was willing to submit to whatever Rome (i.e., the
pope and hierarchy) decreed, then surely ordinary Catholics
ought to do the same. Such submission, however, is not what
Augustine proposed. In context, the quote means something
else. Two synods had ruled on a disputed matter and the
Bishop of Rome had concurred, which 'appeared to him
[Augustine] more than enough, and so the matter might be
regarded as at an end. That a Roman judgment in itself was
not conclusive, but that a 'Concilium plenarium' was
necessary for that purpose, he had himself maintained....'
(quoting Dollinger/Janus). Nowhere else in his
voluminous writings did Augustine even come close to
suggesting that the Bishop of Rome had the final say on
issues of faith or morals....Never once, in all the arguments
he proposed on many issues, did Augustine suggest that the
Bishop of Rome should be consulted as the final arbiter of
orthodoxy, or even that he should be consulted at all."
(Hunt,
page 503-504, emphasis added)

William Webster,
a former
Catholic turned Evangelical, in The Church of
Rome at the Bar of History (Banner
of Truth, 1995), a book also critical of the Catholic Church that
attempts to undermine Catholic dogma by appealing to the Church
Fathers, responds to Catholic apologist Karl Keating's use of St.
Augustine's famous saying "Rome has spoken; the case is
closed" (which is a summary of Augustine's Sermon 131:10) as
follows:

"Karl Keating refers to
Augustine, who he claims affirmed his belief in papal
infallibility during the Pelagian controversy. He gives a
quote from one of Augustine's sermons in which he refers to
Pope Innocent's judgment on Pelagius. He quotes him as
saying, 'Rome has spoken; the case is closed.' But
such an assertion is a total distortion of Augustine's true
position. It is to give a quote out of the
context of the historical situation and the rest of his
writings to arrive at a false perspective of what he really
means. Augustine never endorsed such a teaching
[Webster then refers to Pope Zosimus -- which shall be dealt
with later -- and cites from the same anti-Catholic tome by
Dollinger/Janus above]." (Webster,
page 221, note 12, emphasis added)

J.N.D.
Kelly, one of the
greatest patristic scholars of the 20th century, and an Anglican,
writes to the contrary in his classic work Early Christian Doctrines (HarperSanFrancisco, 1978) :

"According
to him [St. Augustine], the Church
is the realm of Christ, His mystical body and His bride, the
mother of Christians [Ep 34:3; Serm 22:9]. There is no
salvation apart from it; schismatics can have the faith and
sacraments....but cannot put them to a profitable use since
the Holy Spirit is only bestowed in the Church [De bapt 4:24;
7:87; Serm ad Caes 6]....It goes without saying
that Augustine identifies the Church with the universal
Catholic Church of his day, with its hierarchy and
sacraments, and with its centre at Rome....By
the middle of the fifth century the Roman church had
established, de jure as well as de facto, a
position of primacy in the West, and the papal claims to
supremacy over all bishops of Christendom had been formulated
in precise terms....The student
tracing the history of the times, particularly of the Arian,
Donatist, Pelagian and Christological
controversies, cannot fail to be impressed by the skill and
persistence with which the Holy See [of Rome] was continually
advancing and consolidating its claims. Since its occupant
was accepted as the successor of St. Peter, and prince of the
apostles, it was easy to draw the inference that the unique
authority which Rome in fact enjoyed, and which the popes saw
concentrated in their persons and their office, was no more
than the fulfilment of the divine plan." (Kelly, page 412, 413, 417)

In further support
of the above statement from J.N.D. Kelly, the following shall be
sufficient proof that St. Augustine, and the Catholic Church of
his day (late 4th/early 5th century), believed that

(1)
the Bishop of Rome, as successor of St. Peter, held the primacy of
jurisdiction in the Church;

(2)
the Pope in this position had the final say on matters of doctrine
(we shall discuss the history of the Pelagian heresy) and was
indeed the final arbiter of truth and thus infallible;

(3)
St. Augustine's "Rome
has spoken; the case is closed" is indeed an accurate summary of
his belief on the matter (from his Sermons 131:10);

(4)
Further, we shall discuss the role of the African bishops, and Popes
Innocent I and Zosimus (the latter is used as an instance of
"papal fallibility") during the Pelagian controversy.

The
following is adapted from Studies on the Early Papacy
(Kennikat Press, 1971, orig 1928), a collection of articles by
Dom John Chapman, the great patristic scholar of the late
19th/early 20th century at Downside Abbey in England, from
chapter 6 "The Condemnation of Pelagianism" (originally
published by the Dublin Review in
1897). These articles were composed in response to the leading
Anglican scholars and anti-Catholic critics of Chapman's day, and
are tough reading for those who are unfamiliar with Church
history. For a general overview of the history and doctrine of
the early Church Fathers, I would recommend the previously
mentioned Anglican work by J.N.D. Kelly, Early
Christian Doctrines (1978), or the three-volume
work by Catholic patristics scholar William Jurgens, The
Faith of the Early Fathers (1979). On the heretic
Pelagius and the heresy of Pelagianism itself, one good source is
Pelagius: A Historical and Theological Study
by John Ferguson (Cambridge, 1956) or the respective articles in
the old (1913) and New Catholic Encyclopedia
(1967).

Now
for John Chapman's Studies on the Early Papacy.
It shows how wrong anti-Catholic folks such as Dave Hunt and
William Webster are. This document from Chapman shall be divided
into two main parts: part I is Pope
Innocent and the Condemnation of Pelagianism and part
II is Pope
Zosimus and Pelagianism

The anti-papalism of the African Church has been a fruitful theme for
Protestant controversialists. St. Cyprian has been, since the
days of Dodwell, their pet instance of resistance to Roman
claims. Apiarius they are never tired of. St. Augustine is quoted
as a Protestant in the Thirty-nine Articles. "The advocates
of Papal Infallibility are obliged to give up St.
Augustine," said the reckless Janus. [1]
"England," wrote Dr. Pusey, [2] "is
not at this moment more independent of any authority of the
bishop of Rome than Africa was in the days of St.
Augustine." Fr. Puller has followed of late years by warning
"honourable men" to "refrain from pretending that
the Church of North Africa, in the time of St. Augustine,
believed in the principles laid down by the Vatican Council"
: it would be "an impertinence and an act of folly."
Fr. Rivington ventured to commit this impertinence in spite of so
solemn a warning; and Dr. Bright retaliated in the Church
Quarterly Review, and later republished his
apparently hasty articles in The Roman See in the
Early Church.

A
Relation of the Facts and History of Pelagianism

The
best answer to such wild statements is a mere relation of facts.
I propose to give the history of the condemnation of Pelagianism,
so far as possible in the words of the original authorities,
giving references for every fact. These may easily be verified by
anyone who has access to the second and tenth volumes of St.
Augustine's works, the former containing his letters, the latter
comprising his treatises against the Pelagians, together with an
appendix of documents concerning the history of that heresy. [3]

It
is not to be gainsaid that the African Church looked upon the
Roman Church as ever free from heresy, or as possessing an
especial gift of faith. Tertullian signalled it among Apostolic
Churches as that into which the Apostles poured forth their faith
with their blood. [4] To the
Romans, whose faith was praised by the Apostle, says St. Cyprian,
"heresy can have no access." [5] And this
because it was the See of Peter (in the words of St.
Cyprian) -- locus Petri, [6]cathedra
Petri, ecclesia principalis unde unitas sacerdotalis exorta est
(the seat or chair of Peter, the principal Church from which the
unity of the priesthood took its rise). [7] There the
very chair of Peter was preserved [8] (in the
words of St. Optatus) in qua una
cathedra unitas ab omnibus seruaretur (that in this
one chair unity should be preserved by all); [9] (and in
the words of St. Augustine) ipsa est
petra quam non uincunt superbae inferorum portae
(that is the Rock which the gates of hell cannot conquer). [10] In the
Roman Church semper apostolicae cathedra uiguit
principatus (in which the primacy of an Apostolic
chair has always flourished), says St. Augustine [11] the
succession of its Bishops is one of the marks of the true Church
as opposed to heresy. [12]

The
Roman Church and the See of Peter are therefore the divinely
appointed centre of unity, and at the same time, and
consequently, incapable of error. Dr. Bright and Fr. Puller,
following the example of a long series of Anglican writers,
explain away St. Cyprian's words as if they were dealing with the
Thirty-nine Articles; but the above thesis will be confirmed by
the evidence brought forward in the following pages, in which the
Bishop of Rome will appear as the final and inerrant judge of
questions of faith.

Pelagius
and Celestius Teach Heresy

The
honour of producing Pelagius appears to belong to our own island
(England). A monk and a layman, he resided long at Rome, and
achieved some reputation for sanctity. A big, fat man, Orosius
says he was; weighed down, adds St. Jerome, with the porridge of
the Scots. He came from Rome to Carthage in 410, at the time that
the Eternal City was sacked, and he met St. Augustine there once
or twice during the following year. He was already reputed to
have heretical opinions, but the Saint was too much occupied in
discussions with the Donatists to take much notice of him. [13] From
Africa Pelagius seems to have gone to Egypt and Palestine.

Celestius,
his disciple, seems to have left Rome with his master, or about
the same time, and was at Carthage by the year 411. [14] He had
been born an eunuch, but was of considerable talents and of noble
birth. He hoped to attain the priesthood, but was brought to the
notice of Aurelius, bishop of Carthage, as a preacher of heresy.
At a Council in the same year [15] he was
accused by Paulinus, a deacon of Milan, who had been ordained by
the great St. Ambrose, and had written his life at St.
Augustine's request. Celestius was condemned and excommunicated,
being obstinate in his errors. "From this sentence,"
says Marius Mercator, the disciple of St. Augustine and
contemporary, "he thought fit to appeal to the
examination of the Bishop of Rome."
Yet shortly afterwards, neglecting this appeal, he went to
Ephesus, and there tried to obtain the priesthood by fraud. [16]

"I could do nothing at
that time," Paulinus himself wrote later on, "for
he, who had appealed to the Apostolic See (Rome),
was not forthcoming when he ought obviously to have defended
the rights of his appeal; and especially since, even
according to civil laws, when the appellant takes no steps,
it is always the gainer of the original trial who is
winner." [17]

No
one made the slightest objection to this appeal; and we see that
Mercator and Paulinus blame Celestius for not daring to follow it
up at the time. Had the case been one of discipline, like that of
Apiarius, it is possible that the Africans might have requested
the Pope to refuse to hear him, though it is hardly probable, as
Celestius was not an African. But the question, whether or not
the Africans in their letter of 424 or 425 to St. Celestine
denied the right of the Pope to hear appeals, does not touch the
present matter, as from the facts before us and from the whole
history we are about to relate, it is evident that a case of
faith was naturally referred to Rome; while the appeal of the
priest Apiarius was an unusual measure, being an appeal after
condemnation on a criminal charge.

Further,
the objections against the deciding of a matter of discipline out
of the country do not apply to a matter of faith; for the chief
witness both for and against the accused on a charge of heresy is
the heretic himself. The question discussed in this article is
not whether the Africans recognized in the Pope an ordinary
jurisdiction with regard to discipline in every diocese, but what
position they attributed to the Holy See with regard to questions
of faith and morals.

Pelagians
Opposed by Augustine and Jerome

After
the Council, St. Augustine, like the other bishops of Africa,
opposed the doctrine of Celestius in his sermons; [18] and later
in the same year, 412, he wrote the book De peccatorum
meritis et remissione in which, however, he mentions by name
neither Celestius nor Pelagius, and, in fact, appears to praise
the latter for his piety and learning. He added to this the book De
spiritu et littera, and on the feast of St. John Baptist and
again, three days later, he preached at Carthage against the same
heresy. [19] Pelagius
also wrote him a most complimentary letter, which he answered by
a short note, saying that he had received the letter, and asking
Pelagius to pray for him that he might be worthy of such
compliments. [20]

It
is about this time that St. Jerome addressed his well-known
letter to the virgin Demestrias, whose renunciation of great
wealth and position by her veiling had lately caused the
admiration of all Christendom. In it he cautions her against
certain heretics, who were doubtless the Pelagians. He says:

"I had nearly left out
what is most important. When you were a child, and Bishop
Anastasius, of holy memory, ruled the Roman Church, a fierce
storm of (Origenist) heretics from the East tried to sully
and destroy the simplicity of faith which was praised by the
voice of the Apostles (Rom 1:8). But that man of richest
poverty and Apostolic solicitude (2 Cor 11:28) straightway
smote the noxious head and stopped the mouths of the hissing
hydra. And because I am afraid, nay, I have heard the rumour,
that these poisonous shoots are still alive and vigorous in
some, I feel that I ought with the deepest affection to give
you this advice, to hold the faith of holy
Innocent, who is the successor and son of that man and of the
Apostolic See, and not to receive any foreign
doctrine however prudent and clever you may think yourself to
be."

It
may seem probable that Pelagius had already addressed to
Demetrias the letter quoted by St. Augustine and Orosius. St.
Augustine and St. Alypius, by the advice of whom she had taken
the veil, wrote to her later on (417 or 418) an antidote to the
heretic's epistle. [21] Later
still, after the condemnation of Pelagianism by Pope Zosimus,
another letter was addressed to her by an author (thought by
Quesnel to have been St. Leo the Great, then a young man, by the
Ballerini and others St. Prosper, but probably neither) who
refers thus to this heresy:

"This impiety was resisted
by the hearts of innumerable saints, and not only by every
learned bishop; but even the rank and file of the Church, following
the example of the Apostolic See, abhorred the
madness of the new doctrine." [22]

We
return to Pelagius, who on leaving Africa in 411, proceeded to
Palestine, where he seems first to have been friends with St.
Jerome. [23] About 414
St. Jerome wrote a letter to Ctesiphon against Pelagius,
promising a fuller treatise, which he commenced in July, 415.
About 414 St. Augustine wrote a letter against the Sicilian
Pelagians, [24] and in
415 the treatise De natura et gratia, addressed to
Timasius and Jacobus, two young men of good family, who were much
troubled by a book ascribed to Pelagius. At the end of the year
he wrote De perfectione justitiae.

Pelagius
Tried at Jerusalem

About
the middle of this year, Paulus Orosius, a Spanish priest, and
later a famous historian, who had come as a disciple to St.
Augustine, was sent by him to Bethlehem, that he might sit at the
feet of Jerome, then the most eloquent and learned divine in the
whole Church. About the 29th or 30th of July a discussion was
held at Jerusalem, under the presidency of John the bishop. The
apology addressed later on by Orosius to the same assembly gives
an account of its first sitting: [25]

"I was in retirement in
Bethlehem, having been sent by my Father Augustine that I
might learn the fear of God sitting at the feet of Jerome;
from thence I came at your bidding to Jerusalem. I sat down
with you in the assembly at the command of the Bishop John.
Thereupon with one accord you demanded of my littleness to
relate faithfully and simply whatever had been done to my
knowledge in Africa as to this heresy sown by Pelagius and
Celestius. I exposed shortly, as best I could, how Celestius,
who was then intending to creep into the order of priesthood,
was at Carthage, before many bishops in judgement, exposed,
heard, convicted, that he confessed, was excommunicated, fled
from Africa; and how the blessed Augustine had most fully
answered the book of Pelagius, at the request of the
heretic's own disciples (viz. Timasius and Jacobus); and that
I had in my hands a letter of the said bishop, which he had
lately sent into Sicily, in which he mentions many of the
heretic's views. You ordered me to read the letter, and I
read it.

"Upon this John the bishop
asked for Pelagius to be introduced. You gave him your
consent, both for the reverence due to the bishop, and
because the thing was itself good, for you thought he would
be more rightly refuted in the bishop's presence. When
Pelagius was admitted, you inquired of him unanimously
whether he acknowledged that he had taught the doctrines
which Bishop Augustine had confuted. He replied at once: 'And
what is Augustine to me?' And when all cried out that a man
who blasphemed against a bishop by whose mouth God had
vouchsafed to heal the unity of Africa (viz. by the
conversion of the Donatists) ought to be expelled not only
from that assembly but from the whole Church, Bishop John
thereupon told him to sit down, he a layman in the midst of
priests, he accused of manifest heresy in the midst of
Catholics, and then said: 'I am Augustine,' forsooth, that
assuming his person he might the more easily pardon the
wrongs which he took to himself, and so soothe the minds of
his sorrowing audience. After making Pelagius acknowledge his
doctrine, I continued:

'This is what the African Synod
condemned in Celestius; this is what Bishop Augustine
rejected in his writings as you heard; this is condemned by
Pelagius in his own writings by his present answer; this is
condemned by blessed Jerome, whose words are waited for by
the whole West as the dew upon the fleece...."

The
Bishop then tried to get Orosius and the rest of the assembly to
pose as accusers, while he should judge. They declined, on the
ground that the question was already decided. And to his
objections in favour of Pelagius, Orosius replied:

"We are sons of the
Catholic Church; do not you, our Father, ask us to set
ourselves up as doctors above doctors or as judges above
judges. The Fathers who are approved by the universal Church
(viz. whom he had before referred to, Cyprian, Hilary,
Ambrose, Aurelius, Augustine and Jerome), to whose communion
we rejoice to belong, have declared these doctrines damnable:
we must obey their decision."

The
interpreter (for Orosius spoke in Latin) continually gave a wrong
idea of the views of Orosius. At length Orosius cried: "The
heretic is a Latin, we are Latins; the heresy, which is better
known in Latin regions, should be set aside to be judged by Latin
judges." Eventually,

"after many other things
had passed, Bishop John (of Jerusalem) brought forth the
final sentence, confirming at last our demand and intention that
brethren and letters should be sent to Bishop Innocent, Pope
of Rome, for all to follow what he should decide;
but that the heretic Pelagius should until then be
silent,"

and
to this all assented. John of Jerusalem, however, himself broke
this silence by violent objurgations addressed to Orosius, when
the latter came to pay him a complimentary visit at the
dedication festival (September 13th) and by accusations of
heresy; to this Orosius replied by writing his apology. St.
Jerome about the same time composed his dialogues against the Pelagians.

Pelagius
Acquitted at Diospolis

About
December 20th in the same year, 415, a synod was convened at
Diospolis (Lydda) to consider the charges brought against
Pelagius by Heros and Lazarus, bishops of Arles and Aix, who were
dispossessed and travelling in Palestine. Owing to the illness of
one of them neither was present at the Council, nor was Orosius.
Before fourteen bishops Pelagius explained away or anathematized
the errors attributed to him, and was absolved by the Council. He
tried to prevent its acts being made public, but published a
short account himself, of which he sent a copy to St. Augustine.
He also wrote a book, De libero arbitrio, against St.
Jerome, who was also attacked on the same subject by Theodore of Mopsuestia.

At
the beginning of 416 Orosius returned to Hippo, bringing with him
those relics of St. Stephen (whose body had just been discovered
at the time of the Council of Lydda) which worked so many
miracles during the next few years. [26] He also
brought letters from Heros and Lazarus, who complained of the
harm Pelagius was doing in Palestine. These he exhibited to a
provincial synod of Africa Proconsularis, which met about June at
Carthage, and consisted of sixty-eight bishops.

Sixty-Eight
Bishops at Council of Carthage to Pope Innocent I

The
letter written by the council to Pope Innocent I. explains their
action:

"We had come according to
custom to the Church of Carthage, and a synod was held for
various affairs, when our fellow-priest Orosius presented us
with letters from our holy brothers and fellow-bishops Heros
and Lazarus, which we enclose. These having been read, we
perceived that Pelagius and Celestius were accused of being
authors of a wicked error, which must be anathematized by all
of us. Wherefore we asked that all which had been done with
regard to Celestius here in Carthage about five years ago
should be gone through. This having been read, as your
Holiness can perceive from the acts which we append, although
the decision was clear, by which so great a wound was shown
to have been cut away from the Church by an episcopal
judgement, yet we thought good by a common deliberation, that
the authors of this persuasion (although it was said that
this Celestius had arrived since then at the priesthood),
unless they openly anathematized in order that, if their
salvation cannot, at least that of those who may have been or
may be deceived by them may be procoured, when they know the
sentence against them. This act, lord brother, we thought
right to intimate to your holy charity, in order that to
the statues of our littleness might be added the authority of
the Apostolic See (ut statutis
nostrae mediocritatis etiam apostolicae sedis adhibeatur
auctoritas) for the preservation of the safety
of many, and the correction of the perversity of some."

The
Fathers next expose the errors of Pelagius, and after refuting
them by a string of Scripture texts, they continue:

"And we fear lest by
repeating to you these very things which you
preach with more grace from the Apostolic seat
(quae majore gratia de sede apostolica praedicas),
we should seem to act inconveniently. But we do so because,
just on account of our greater weakness, the more zeal we
show in preaching the Word of God, the more constant and bold
are the attacks of the heretics. It, therefore, Pelagius
seems to your Holiness to have been justly absolved by the
Episcopal acts which are said to have been transacted in the
East, at all events, the error itself and impiety which has
now many assertors in divers places, ought to be
anathematized by the authority of the Apostolic See also.
Let your Holiness consider and feel with us in your pastoral
heart how baneful and destructive for the sheep of Christ is
that which follows of necessity from their sacrilegious
discussions."

After
more theological argument, the bishops conclude thus:

"Wherefore, even if
Pelagius and Celestius have amended their ways or say that
they never held such opinions, and deny to be theirs whatever
writings are brought as evidence against them, and if there
is no way of convicting them of falsehood -- yet in general
whoever asserts dogmatically, etc....let him be anathema.
Whatever other things are objected against them, we doubt not
that your Reverence, after perusing the Episcopal acts which
are said to have been drawn up in the East in the same cause,
will make such a judgment that we shall all
rejoice in the mercy of God (id
judicaturum unde omnes in Dei misericordia gaudeamus)." [27]

Sixty-One
Bishops at Council of Milevis (Numidia) to Pope Innocent I

At
the same time was held a provincial council of the province of
Numidia at Milevis, [28] attended
by sixty-one bishops, including St. Augustine. Imitating that of
Pro-consular Africa, they also wrote to Pope Innocent:

"Since God has by a
special gift of His grace set you in the Apostolic See, and
has given such a one as yourself to our times, so that it
could rather be imputed to us as a fault of negligence if we
failed to unfold to your Reverence whatever is to be
suggested for the Church, than that you should be able to
receive the same with contempt or negligence, [29] we
beseech you to imply your pastoral diligence to the great
peril of the weak members of Christ."

After
exposing the heresy, the bishops continued:

"In insinuating these
things to your Apostolic breast we have no need to say much,
and heap up words about this impiety, since doubtless they
will move you in such wise that you will be altogether unable
to refrain from correcting them, that they may creep no
further....The authors of this most pernicious heresy are
said to be Pelagius and Celestius, whom, indeed, we should
prefer to be cured with the Church, rather than that they
should be cut off from the Church, if no necessity compels
this. One of them, Celestius, is even said to have arrived at
the priesthood in Asia. Your Holiness is better informed by
the Council of Carthage as to what was done against him a few
years back. Pelagius, as the letters of some of our brethren
say, is in Jerusalem, and is said to have deceived many
there. Many more, however, who have been able to examine his
views more closely, are fighting him on behalf of the
Catholic Faith, but especially your holy son, our brother and
fellow-priest, Jerome. But we consider that with the help of
the mercy of our God, whom we pray to direct your counsels
and to hear your prayers, those who hold such perverse and
baneful opinions will more easily yield to the
authority of your Holiness, which has been taken from the
authority of the Holy Scriptures (auctoritati
sanctitatis tuae, de sanctarum scripturarum auctoritate
depromptae facilius....esse cessuros), so
that we may be rather rejoiced by their correction than
saddened by their destruction. But whatever
they themselves may choose, your Reverence perceives that at
least those many must be cared for whom they may entangle in
their nets if they should not submit straightforwardly. We
write this to your Holiness from the Council of Numidia,
imitating our fellow bishops of the Church and province of
Carthage, whom we understand to have written of this affair
to the Apostolic See which your Blessedness adorns."

These
two letters were carried to Italy by Julius, an African bishop.
The least we can gather from them as to the Pope is that he has
"more grace" [30] than the
two provincial councils, and that, while the judgment of these is
braved by the heretics, the authority of the Apostolic See,
founded on Scripture, [31] will
strike terror into them, and perhaps convert them.

The
Africans ask for an authoritative condemnation by the Pope of
those doctrines which they had themselves condemned, in order
that the evil may be entirely cut away. They imply the view that
we shall find more clearly exemplified later on, that their
decision was strictly binding only in Africa, while that of
Innocent would have an Ecumenical or Universal force.

Letter
from Five Bishops to Pope Innocent I

But
we may learn more from a third letter, longer and less formal,
which was taken by Bishop Julius to Rome, signed jointly by five
Bishops -- viz., Aurelius the Primate, Augustine,
Alypius, Evodius and Possidius, five great names.
They say:

"We send to your Holiness
letters form the two Councils of the provinces of Carthage
and Numidia, signed by no small number of bishops, against
the enemies of the grace of Christ....Many of these rise up
against us and say to our soul, 'There is no help for him in
his God.' Therefore the family of Christ, which says, 'When I
am weak then am I strong,' and to whom the Lord says, 'I am
thy salvation,' with suspense of heart, with fear and
trembling, waits for the help of the Lord also by
the charity of your Reverence. For we have
heard that there are many in the city of Rome, where Pelagius
long lived, who favour him for various causes, some because
he is said to have persuaded them of his doctrine, but a
larger number because they do not believe him to hold it,
especially since it is boasted that ecclesiastical acts were
drawn up in the East, where he is living, by which he is
declared innocent. If indeed the bishops there pronounced him
Catholic, we must believe that it was for no other reason
than because he said he acknowledged the grace of
Christ....it is not a question of Pelagius only, but of so
many others of whose loquacity and contentiousness....the
world is full.

"Therefore either he
should be sent for to Rome by your Reverence and carefully
examined as to what grace he means when he admits (if he does
admit) that men are by grace aided to avoid sin and live
justly, or else this must be transacted with him by letter.
And when it has been proved that he means that grace which is
taught by ecclesiastical and apostolic truth, then without
any doubt on the Church's part, without any lurking
ambiguity, he must be absolved, and then we must really
rejoice in his acquittal.

"[Much further on, c. 15:]
If his supporters knew that the book which they think or know
to be his has been anathematized and condemned by himself on
the authority of Catholic bishops, and especially
that of your Holiness, which we do not doubt will be of
greater weight with him, we think they will not
dare further to disturb faithful and simple Christian
breasts....Wherefore we have thought it best to send to your
beatitude a letter written by one of our number [St.
Augustine] to Pelagius, who had sent him by a certain deacon
(ordained in the East, but a citizen of Hippo) some writing
to justify himself, since we think it better that you should
send it to him yourself; and we pray you to do so, for so he
will the rather not disdain to read it, regarding more in it
him whom sent it than him who wrote it."

Thus
the five bishops say just the same as the two Councils in which
they had borne a part, that the Pope's greater authority will
doubtless be respected where their own might be despised. [32] They do
not so far state explicitly that his judgment is final or
infallible. But the last sentence of their letter suggests this:

"Of the rest of the
accusations against him doubtless your beatitude will judge
in the same way as the acts of the two Councils. Doubtless
your kindness of heart will pardon us for having sent to your
Holiness a longer letter than you might perhaps have wished. For
we do not pour back our little stream for the purpose of
replenishing your great fountain (non
enim riuulum nostrum tuo largo fonti augendo refundimus);
but in the great temptation of these times (from which may He
deliver us to whom we say, 'and lead us not into temptation')
we wish it to be approved by you whether our
stream, though small, flows from the same head of water as
your abundant river, and to be consoled by your
answer in the common participation of the same grace." [33]

We
cannot but compare the words in which St. Augustine later sends
his writings to the Holy See, non tam discenda quam
examinanda, et ubi forsitan aliquid displicueret emendanda, [34] which are
similar words to Pelagius' insincere protestation: emendari
cupimus a te qui Petri et fidem et sedem tenes. [35]

At
the same time Augustine was writing to a certain Bishop Hilary,
perhaps of Narbonne, warning him against the Pelagians:

"Already, as I am writing
this, we have heard that in the Church of Carthage a decree
of the council of bishops has been made against them [36] to be
sent by letter to the holy and venerable Pope Innocent; and
we have similarly written from the Council of Numidia to the
same Apostolic See." [37]

He
also wrote to John of Jerusalem, explaining the heresies
contained in the books attributed to Pelagius in Africa, and
asking for a correct copy of the acts of Diospolis, which he as
yet knew only from Pelagius' own fraudulent account. [38]

The
Answers of Pope Innocent to the African Bishops

The
answers of Pope Innocent to the three letters addressed to him
from Africa are all dated January 27, 417. To Carthage he writes
(and the letter probably emanates from a Roman Council, according
to custom in grave matters) :

"In making inquiry with
respect to those things that should be treated with all
solicitude by bishops, and especially by a true and just and
Catholic Council, by preserving, as you have done, the
example of ancient tradition, and by being mindful of
ecclesiastical discipline, you have truly strengthened the
vigour of our Faith, no less now in consulting us than before
in passing sentence. For you decided that it was
proper to refer to our judgement, knowing what is due to the
Apostolic See, since all we who are set in this place, desire
to follow the Apostle (Peter) from whom the very episcopate
and whole authority of this name is derived.
Following in his steps, we know how to condemn the evil and
to approve the good. So also, you have by your sacerdotal
office preserved the customs of the Fathers, and have not
spurned that which they decreed by a divine and not human
sentence, that whatsoever is done, even though it be in
distant provinces, should not be ended without
being brought to the knowledge of this See, [39]that
by its authority the whole just pronouncement should be
strengthened, and that from it all other Churches (like
waters flowing from their natal source and flowing through
the different regions of the world, the pure streams of one
incorrupt head), should receive what they ought to enjoin,
whom they ought to wash, and whom that water, worthy of pure
bodies, should avoid as defiled with uncleansable filth. I
congratulate you, therefore, dearest brethren, that you have
directed letters to us by our brother and fellow-bishop
Julius, and that, while caring for the Churches which you
rule, you also show your solicitude for the well-being of
all, and that you ask for a decree that shall
profit all the Churches of the world at once; [40]so
that the Church being established in her rules and confirmed
by this decree of just pronouncement against such errors,
may be unable to fear those men, etc." [41]

The
Pope goes on to declare that men who deny the necessity of grace
must be cut off from the Church, lest the festering wound should
corrupt the rest of the body. Should they, however, repent, he
concludes, it will be in the power of the Pontiffs to assist them
to a certain extent, and to give some care to these great wounds,
such as that kindness which the Church is not wont to deny to the
lapsed when they repent. To Milevis, Pope Innocent writes:

"Among the cares of the
Roman Church and the occupations of the Apostolic See in
which we treat with faithful and medicinal [42]
discussion the consultations of divers, our brother and
fellow-bishop Julius has brought me unexpectedly the letters
of your charity which you sent from the Council of Milevis in
your earnest care for the Faith, adding the writing of a
smiliar complaint from the Council of Carthage. [He praises
their zeal and continues:] It is therefore with
due care and propriety that you consult the secrets of the
Apostolic office (apostolici
consulitis honoris [al. oneris]
arcana) that office, I mean, to
which belongs, besides the things which are without, the
care of all the Churches, as to what opinion you should hold
in this anxious question, following thus the ancient rule
which you know has been observed with me by the whole world. [43] But
this subject I dismiss, for I do not think it is unknown to
your prudence; for else, why did you confirm it with your
action, if you were not aware that responses ever
flow from the Apostolic fountain to all provinces for those
who ask them? Especially as often as a question of faith is
discussed, I think that all our brothers and fellow-bishops
should refer to none other than to Peter, the author of their
name and office, even as now your charity has
referred to us a thing which may be useful throughout
the world to all the Churches in common. For
all must of necessity become more cautious when they see that
the inventors of evil, at the relation of two synods, have
been cut off by our sentence from ecclesiastical communion.
Your charity will therefore do a double good. For you will
obtain the grace of having preserved the canons, and the
whole world will share your benefit."

Further
on he gives his decision. "We judge by the
authority of Apostolic power (apostolici
uigoris auctoritate) that Pelagius and
Celestius be deprived of ecclesiastical communion,
until they return to the faith out of the snares of the
devil...." [44] To the
five bishops Pope Innocent writes that "some laymen or
other" had given him acts, purporting to be those of a
Council wherein Pelagius was acquitted. The judgment he can
neither praise nor blame, since he knows not whether the acts are
genuine; or if they are, whether Pelagius did not merely escape
condemnation by subterfuge. [45] A fourth
letter was addressed to the Primate Aurelius alone.

We
have seen what the African bishops asked. We see now that Rome
gave exactly the answer they wished. The Pope compliments them on
their adherence to ancient custom in referring the matter to the
Bishop of Rome (himself), approves their action with regard to
the heretics and their heresy, and accedes to their request that
he should excommunicate them.

Anglicans
Not So Bright

The
doctrine of Pope St. Innocent as to the rights of the Apostolic
See is more explicit but hardly wider than that of the letters to
which he replies. It would need no special comment had it not
raised the indignation of most modern heretics and non-Catholics.
Dr. Bright assumes that the Africans felt as he does, only that
they dissimulated their disgust, because it was so important for
them to secure the influence of "the Apostolic and Petrine
See" against Pelagianism. "They would not in such
circumstances, feel bound to criticize its language about itself,
but would dwell on its Catholic view of the question at
issue" (quoting Bright, page 129). There is absolutely no
evidence for this view of Dr. Bright's, while the letters of the
Councils and of the five bishops alone are decisive against it.
It is useless to protest against this a priori method of
writing history. Nevertheless I will be at pains to complete the
proof as carefully as though a refutation were needed.

In
the first place it must not be overlooked that the African
bishops knew perfectly well the stylus curiae of their
time. The epistles sent to East and West from Rome on the
business of some particular province or diocese were usually
published to the world at large. Sometimes the bishop who
received them was expected to publish them; sometimes the letter
was sent elsewhere from Rome, with a mere change in the greeting,
while the contents betray their original destination.

The
Africans must have been familiar with many other letters of
Siricius, Innocent and their pedecessors, most of which are lost
to us; but we can judge of their claims by the existing letters, [46] and by
those of the succeeding Pontiffs, Zosimus, Boniface, Celestine,
Leo, Hilarus, and so on. As for the predecessors of Siricius,
their letters are few and far between, but those we possess of
Damasus make no lesser claims. And who can forget the two famous
letters sent to Africa, which roused the wrath of Tertullian and
St. Cyprian? These epistles, so far as we can gather, were just
in the style of the letters before us; the former was as from a Pontifex
maximus and episcopus episcoporum (Bishop of
bishops); [47] the
latter enjoined obedience to ancient custom under pain of
excommunication, by the authority of that Rock on whom Christ
built His Church (Matt 16:18). [48]

The
African bishops therefore knew perfectly well what style of
answer they would get, and we should be surprised if they did not
receive the answers with joy. We shall, in fact, presently come
upon many proofs that they did, and even upon many direct
approvals of the Pope's claims. I simply defy Dr. Bright or
anyone else to find any ancient authority for his theory that in
the view of the Africans the decision of their two Councils were
a co-ordinate element with the letters of Innocent in the
condemnation of the Pelagian heresy. Such a theory would force us
to ignore the meaning of the words relatio,
referre, constantly and consistently
used of the action of these Councils, which imply the reference
of a matter to a higher authority, and correspond with the words rescripta,
rescribere, applied to the letters of
the Pope. One would be obliged also to forget the words of the
five Bishops given above, implying the possibility (however
improbable) of their decision being corrected
by the Pope's reply. Here are some of the passages in which the
decision is ascribed by contemporaries to Pope St.
Innocent alone.

More
Contemporary Commentary on Pope Innocent's Decision

St.
Prosper, the devoted admirer of St. Augustine, writing twelve
years later, has the following reference: [49]

(First to hew down the oncoming
scourge was Rome, the See of Peter, which, having
been made capital of the world's Pastoral Office,
holds by religion whatever it does not hold by arms. Next,
and not lingering behind, sprang forward the guardian of the
Eastern leaders, etc)

The
same writer has the expressions: "At that time the
Pelagians, who had already been condemned by Pope Innocent were
being resisted by the vigour of the Africans and above all by the
learning of Bishop Augustine"; [51] and

"They fell when Innocent,
of blessed memory, struck the heads of the deadly
error with the apostolic sword, apostolico
mucrone percussit, when the synod of
Palestinian bishops drove Pelagius to condemn himself and his
followers; when Pope Zosimus, of blessed memory, joined the
strength of his sentence to the decrees of the African
Councils (i.e. those of next year), and armed the
right hands of all bishops with the sword of Peter for the
cutting off of the impious. When Pope Boniface,
of holy memory, rejoiced in the devotion of the most pious
emperors, and made use against the enemies the grace of God,
not only of apostolic, but also of royal edicts; and when,
though himself most learned, he asked for answers to the
books of the Pelagians from blessed Bishop Augustine." [52]

Here
is Marius Mercator's account (the explanations in brackets are
those of Chapman) :

"Celestius and Pelagius
were not then for the first time condemned by
(Pope) Zosimus of blessed memory,
but by his predecessor Innocent, of holy
memory, by whom Julian had been ordained. And Julian, after
their condemnation, until the death of Innocent, remained in
his communion and persevered in the true faith; and since he
communicated with him who had condemned Pelagius
and Celestius, doubtless he condemned them
himself; and what he wants now, or of what he complains, I do
not know. Now the reason for this condemnation by
Innocent, of blessed memory, was the following:
After the devastation of Rome (by Alaric in 410) Pelagius was
living in Palestine. His books were discovered by certain
careful bishops (viz. Heros and Lazarus) in which he has
evidently written many things against the Catholic Faith.
These books were sent, together with letters, to the Fathers
and bishops in Africa, where the books were read at the three
Councils which were assembled (i.e. those of Carthage,
Milevis, and of the five Bishops). From thence relations were
sent to Rome, together with the books; the
apostolic sentence in reply to the Councils followed, which
deprived Pelagius and Celestius of ecclesiastical communion,
and we have in our hands copies of these writings" (i.e.
the letters of Pope Innocent). [53]

Here,
again, the whole sentence is ascribed to Innocent, and the
African Councils are merely represented as referring the matter
to him. In the book called Praedestinatus, written some
twenty or thirty years after, and attributed to Arnobius the
younger, we find the following:

"Pope
Innocent, when the matter was referred to him by nearly all
the African Bishops, wrote the condemnation of both Pelagius
and Celestius. These later, however, whether
before they were condemned by the universal
Church, or after they were condemned, did not
cease to write," etc. [54]

Here
again the judgment of Innocent is simply treated as final; while
apparently it is considered to be a condemnation by the universal
Church. The subsequent sentence of Pope Zosimus may, however, be
meant, which was signed by all bishops. But Gennadius, at the end
of the century, the later author of the Liber Pontificalis,
and the contemporary Possidius have similar expressions. [55] Again,
the Council of 214 Bishops which met early in the next year at
Carthage has: "We decide that the sentence
against Pelagius and Celestius promulgated by the venerable
Bishop Innocent from the See of the blessed Apostle Peter remain
firm, until they shall confess," etc. [56] Again,
Paulinus, [57] in his
account (which will be quoted further on) of the trial of
Celestius before Pope Zosimus, has no mention of the African
Councils, but openly professes belief in the inerrancy of the
Roman See.

St.
Augustine and Pelagianism

To
make the proof complete let us look at St. Augustine's own
statements on the subject. We have already seen him at the
Council of Milevis and in the private letter of five bishops
referring the matter to the Pope in terms which alone totally
exclude Dr. Bright's view. He was also the prime leader of the
214 Bishops just cited, and St. Prosper, Marius Mercator and the
Milanese Paulinus were proud to be his disciples. Yet I add his
express words:

"Do you think these
Fathers -- viz. Irenaeus, Cyprian, Reticius, Hilary, Ambrose
[whom he had been quoting] are to be despised because they
all belong to the Western Church, and I have mentioned no
Eastern Bishop among them? What are we to do, since they are
Greeks and we are Latins? I think that you ought to be
satisfied with that part of the world in which our
Lord willed to crown the chief (primus)
of His apostles (Peter)
with a glorious martyrdom. If you had been
willing to hear blessed Innocent, the president of that
Church, you would have long ago disengaged your perilous
youth from the nets of the Pelagians. For what
could that holy man answer to the African Councils, except
what from of old the Apostolic See and the Roman
Church with all others perseveringly holds? And
yet you accuse his successor Zosimus of prevarication, because
he would not allow the apostolic doctrine and the decision of
his successor to be rescinded. But I say no
more of this, that I may not, by the praise of
him who condemned you, irritate your mind,
which I desire rather to heal than to wound. See
what you can reply to St. Innocent, who has no
other view than have those into whose council I have
introduced you (viz. the Fathers whom he had quoted); with
these he sits also, though after them in time, before
them in rank (etsi posterior
tempore prior loco)....answer him,
or rather our Lord Himself, whose words he
alleges....What will you say? What can you answer? For it you
should call blessed Innocent a Manichean, surely you will not
dare to say it of Christ?" [58]

Again
St. Augustine relates that while Celestius refused at Rome to
condemn the views which Paulinus accused him of holding, which
was equivalent to denying the authority of the Council of
Carthage in 411, from which he had appealed, yet "he
did not dare to resist the letters of the blessed pope Innocent,"
[59] the same
Innocent who condemned Pelagius and Celestius. [60]

"And the words of the
venerable Bishop Innocent to the Council of Carthage....What
more plain and clear than this sentence of the Apostolic See?
To this Celestius professed to consent when....he answered:
'I condemn them according to the sentence of your
holy predecessor Innocent.'...."What of
that which the same Pope wrote in answer to the Bishops of
Numidia also (because he had received letters from both
Councils -- that is, both of Carthage and Milevis) does it
not speak clearly of infants?" [61]

Again
: he speaks of Celestius seeming to be Catholic "when
he answered that he consented to the letters of Pope Innocent, of
blessed memory, by which all doubt about this matter was removed."
[62] This last
sentence alone is sufficient proof.

The
following passage is also to be noted, written at the end of the
Saint's life: "Let blessed Innocent also reply, the prelate
of the Roman Church, who in answering (rescribens) the
African Episcopal Councils in your case said: (he then quotes a
passage from the letter to the Council of Carthage). 'Do you see
what the Catholic Faith holds by her minister?' 'Videsne quid
sapiat per ministrum suum catholica fides?'" [63]

Other
equally strong passages will be quoted shortly, while St.
Augustine's treatment of the decisions of Innocent's successor
will also throw light on the subject later on.

History
of Pelagianism Continued

Let
us continue the interrupted history. Before receiving the Pope's
answers, St. Augustine had at length received authentic copies of
the acts of the synod of Diospolis, which Innocent himself had
not yet been able to procure, and which St. Augustine had
besought John of Jerusalem to send him. He found in them, as he
had already divined, that Pelagius had only been acquitted
because he feigned to accept Catholic doctrine. He thereupon
wrote the book De gestis Pelagii in which he shows that
in the absence of his accusers, Heros and Lazarus, and in the
presence of judges who could not read the book in question
because they did not know latin, Pelagius had evaded condemnation
without difficulty.

About
the same time the followers of Pelagius in Palestine wreaked
vengeance on their vigorous opponent St. Jerome, by storming his
monastery and that of his disciples, Eustochium and Paula, a
deacon being killed and St. Jerome himself taking refuge in a
tower. [64] This
grievous outrage, writes St. Augustine, does not concern himself,
but must be punished by the local bishops. The Pope, to whom
Eustochium and Paula appeared, wrote a severe letter to rebuke
John of Jerusalem who had taken no measures to protect the
servants and virgins of Christ, and another letter to St. Jerome,
saying that he had hastened to seize the authority of the
Apostolic See to repress all wickedness, only that the name of
the author of the crime had not been divulged, nor had a formal
accusation been lodged. John of Jerusalem was perhaps already
dead when the letter of St. Innocent reached Palestine. This
great Pope himself died on March 12th of this year, 417.

Not
long after this date, St. Augustine and St. Alypius wrote to St.
Paulinus of Nola, whom they knew to have been formerly a friend
of Pelagius, to warn him against his doctrines, which were said
to be spreading among the citizens of Nola, and of which St.
Paulinus himself appears to have been claimed as protector. They
gave him an account of the Synod of Diospolis, and enclosed
copies of the letters of the African councils to St. Innocent,
and of the Pope's replies. They say:

"After letters had come to
us from the East, discussing the case in the clearest manner,
we were bound not to fail in assisting the Church's need with
such episcopal authority as we possess (nullo modo jam
qualicumque episcopali auctoritate deesse Ecclesiae
debueramus). In consequence, relations as to this matter
were sent from two Councils -- those of Carthage and of
Milevis -- to the Apostolic See, before the ecclesiastical
acts by which Pelagius is said to have been acquitted had
come into our hands or into Africa at all. We also wrote to
Pope Innocent, of blessed memory a private letter, besides
the relations of the Councils, wherein we described the case
at greater length, TO ALL OF THESE HE ANSWERED IN THE
MANNER WHICH WAS THE RIGHT AND DUTY OF THE BISHOP OF THE
APOSTOLIC SEE (Ad omnia nobis ille
rescripsit eo modo quo fas erat atque oportebat Apostolicae
sedis Antistitem). All of which you may now
read, if perchance none of them or not all of them have yet
received you; in them you will see that, while he has
preserved the moderation which was right, so that the heretic
should not be condemned if he condemns his errors, yet the
new and pernicious error is so restrained by ecclesiastical
authority that we much wonder that there should be any still
remaining who, by any error whatsoever, try to fight against
the grace of God...." [65]

Here
two Saints writing to another Saint explain the African method of
using episcopal authority for the good of the Church. It consists
in sending an authoritative account of the heresy rampant in
their province to the Apostolic See at Rome, that the Pope may
ratify their action and publish an anathema to the whole Church.
His "swelling words" and "apocryphal history"
are described as what was fitting and proper from the successor
of St. Peter. [66]

Rome
has Spoken, the Case is Concluded

It
was on Sunday, September 23rd, 417, that St. Augustine, being at
Carthage, preached "at the table of Cyprian" that
famous sermon against Pelagianism which concludes with these
words:

"My brethren, be of one
mind with me. Wheresoever you find such men do not hide them,
have no perverse pity. Refute those who contradict, and bring
to us those who resist. For already two Councils have been
sent to the Apostolic See concerning this matter, and
rescripts have come from thence [from Rome].
The case is concluded; would that
the error would soon cease also. Causa finita
est, utinam aliquando finiatur error. [67]

True,
the question of dogma was decided for ever, but yet the case was
not yet finished. While Augustine spoke, letters were on their
way from the new Pope (Zosimus), declaring that Celestius and
Pelagius were innocent victims of malicious calumny, and had
never taught the errors attributed to them [is this a case of
"papal fallibility" ? -- see part II for the answer];
while they most humbly submitted to past and future judgments of
the Holy See.

END
OF PART ONE

ENDNOTES
for Part I: Pope Innocent and the Condemnation of Pelagianism